Orissa High Court
Smt. Rukmani Nayak & Another vs Pradip Kumar Nayak & Others on 23 December, 2025
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK
WP(C) No.19732 of 2013
An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of
India.
***
Smt. Rukmani Nayak & Another ... Petitioners.
-VERSUS-
Pradip Kumar Nayak & Others ... Opposite Parties.
Counsel appeared for the parties:
For the Petitioners : Mr. D.P. Mohanty, Advocate For the Opposite Parties : None. (for Opp. Party Nos.1 to 4) P R E S E N T:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA Date of Hearing : 02.12.2025 :: Date of Judgment :23.12.2025 J UDGMENT WP(C) No.19732 of 2025 Page 1 of 9 ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.--
1. This writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioners (appellants before the 1st Appellate Court in R.F.A. No.34/2006 arising out of C.S. No.900 of 2006) against the Opp. Parties (respondents in R.F.A. No.34/2006 arising out of C.S. No.900 of 2006) praying for quashing (setting aside) the impugned order dated 01.08.2013 (Annexure-3) passed in R.F.A. No.34/2006.
2. The factual backgrounds of this writ petition which prompted the petitioners for filing of the same is that, the petitioners being the appellants filed R.F.A. No.34/2006 challenging the compromise decree passed on dated 06.01.1977 in T.S. No.66 of 1976 by the learned Sub-Ordinate Judge, Balasore on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation.
The Petitioner No.1 in this writ petition was the defendant No.3 in the suit vide C.S. No.900 of 2006.
During the pendency of that R.F.A. No.34/2006 in the Court of learned Addl. District Judge-cum-Special Judge, WP(C) No.19732 of 2025 Page 2 of 9 (Vigilance), Balasore, the appellants filed a petition on dated 27.06.2013 under Order 41, Rule 27 read with Order 26, Rule 10A of the CPC, 1908 praying for a direction to conduct a scientific investigation in respect of the signatures of the appellant No.1 in R.F.A. No.34 of 2006 (defendant No.3 in the suit vide C.S. No.900 of 2006) in the so-called compromise petition in the suit vide T.S. No.66/1976 in order to ascertain the genuineness thereof comparing the same with admitted signatures alleging that, the signatures on the compromise petition dated 06.01.1977 in T.S. No.66/1976 appears as the signatures of Rukmani Bewa @ Naik are forged signatures and prayed for consideration of the said petition dated 27.06.2013 first before hearing of the appeal vide R.F.A. No.34/2006.
To which, the respondents in the R.F.A. No.34/2006 objected.
After hearing from both the sides, the learned Addl. District Judge-cum-Special Judge, (Vigilance), Balasore passed the impugned order on dated 01.08.2013 (Annexure-3) in that R.F.A. No.34 of 2006 assigning the reasons that, WP(C) No.19732 of 2025 Page 3 of 9 "the petition dated 27.06.2013 (Annexure-2) filed by the appellants under Order 41, Rule 27 read with Order 26, Rule 10A of the CPC, 1908 would be considered during the final hearing of the appeal clarifying that, the parties may reiterate their stands in respect of the said petition under Order 41, Rule 27 of the CPC during the hearing of the appeal on merit."
3. On being dissatisfied with the above impugned order dated 01.08.2013 (Annexure-3) passed in R.F.A. No.34/2006 by the Addl. District Judge-cum-Special Judge, (Vigilance), Balasore, the appellants challenged the same by filing this writ petition being the petitioners against the respondents of that R.F.A. arraying them as Opp. Parties praying for quashing (setting aside) the order dated 01.08.2013 passed in R.F.A. No.34/2006 by the Addl. District Judge-cum-Special Judge, (Vigilance), Balasore.
4. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the petitioners only, as none appeared from the side of the Opp. Parties.
WP(C) No.19732 of 2025 Page 4 of 9
5. The law relating to the stage of consideration of a petition under Order 41, Rule 27 of the CPC, 1908 in an appeal has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:
I. In a case between Nandam Rama Rao Vs Battu Rama Rao reported in LawMirror.com File Number 33282 that, application under 0.41.R.27 of the CPC for additional evidence should be decided along with appeal and the same cannot be taken up independently without taking up the appeal. II. In a case between Ram Dayal (since Deceased) Through His Lrs. Vs Municipal Board, Nadbai reported in 2015(4) Civil Court Cases 614 (Rajasthan) that, additional evidence under 0.41.R.27 of the CPC at appellate stage is required to be dealt with at the time of final hearing of the appeal and not before that. III. In a case between Jarnel Singh Vs Khushi Mohammed & Ors. reported in 2013(2) Civil Court Cases 326 (Rajasthan) that, for additional evidence, an application under 0.41.R.27 of the CPC at the appellate stage, has to be decided at final hearing of the appeal and not during pendency of appeal.
IV. In a case between Rajendra Kumar Vs. Suresh Chand & Others reported in 2014 (I) PLR 799 that, application for additional evidence under Order 41, Rule 27 of the CPC at the appellate stage must be taken up along with appeal.
V. In a case between Rajkumar Chaganlal Shah Vs. Gunmala Chandrakant Shah & Others reported in 2020 (2) Civil Court Cases 550 (Bombay) that, application for additional evidence under Order 41, Rule 27 of the CPC, 1908 has to be decided at the stage of final hearing and if Court comes to conclusion that a case for additional evidence is made out then to allow the same.
VI. In a case between Yetendra Kumar Vs. Vinod Kumar & Another reported in 2015 (2) Civil Court Cases 416 (Allahabad) that, application for additional evidence under Order 41, Rule 27 of the CPC, 1908 is required to be heard along with final arguments of the appeal to come to the conclusion as to whether additional evidence sought to be produced during the pendency of WP(C) No.19732 of 2025 Page 5 of 9 the appeal is required to be taken on record for the fair adjudication of the appeal, such application should be heard along with final argument of appeal. VII. In a case between Harbans Singh & Others Vs. State of Punjab & Others reported in 2013 (4) Civil Court Cases 68 (P&H) that, application for additional evidence under Order 41, Rule 27 of the CPC, 1908 not to be taken independently of the disposal of appeal. Application has to be decided along with appeal. VIII. In a case between Binod Mahto Vs. Basani Mahatain & Others reported in 2020(4) Civil Court Cases 762 (Jharkhand) that, application for additional evidence under Order 41, Rule 27 of the CPC, 1908 will be considered at the time of hearing of appeal even if filed during the pendency of the appeal.
IX. In a case between Mrs. Maria Felicidade Amaltina Mascarenhas & Others Vs. Joao Francisco Serrao Alias John Francisco Serrao & Another reported in 2022 (1) Civil Court Cases 289 Bombay that, application for additional evidence under Order 41, Rule 27 of the CPC, 1908 to be taken up for consideration along with final hearing of appeal.
X. In a case between Anoop Sharma & Another Vs. Pushpa Sharma reported in 2019 (Supp) Civil Court Cases 757 (Delhi) that, disposal of application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC, 1908 by First Appellate Court prior to consideration of the adjudication of appeal itself is erroneous and thus, unsustainable.
XI. In a case between Fulra Devi Vs. Addl. District & Sessions Judge/F.T.C (II) Ambedkar Nagar & Others reported in 2018 (2) Civ. Court Cases 621 (Allhabad) that, application under Order 41, Rule 27 of the CPC has to be considered only at the stage of final hearing of the appeal.
XII. In the cases between Sukru Bibhar Vs. Tilekswar Naik & Others 1998(II) OLR 129 & Kamlesh Manjari Devi Vs. Satyanarayan Aich & Others reported in 2008 (II) OLR 383 that, appellate court to postpone the consideration of the petition under Order 41, Rule 27 of the CPC for adducing additional evidence till hearing of the appeal and to take up the same at the time of hearing of the appeal on merits to find out the relevancy about the admissibility of the additional evidence. XIII. In a case between Shankar Lal Saini Vs. Smt. Nagina Patoliya & Another reported in 2025 (4) Civ.C.C. 496 (Rajasthan) that, application filed under Order 41, WP(C) No.19732 of 2025 Page 6 of 9 Rules 25 and 27 of the CPC is required to be decided with the main appeal and appropriate orders be passed on the said application, after hearing both the parties. XIV. In a case between Union of India Vs. Ibrahim Uddin & Ors. reported in 2012 (8) SCC 148 that, an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is to be considered at the time of hearing of appeal on merits so as to find out whether the documents and/or the evidence sought to be adduced have any relevance/bearing on the issues involved.
6. After taking the provisions of law for adducing additional evidence at the appellate stage envisaged under Order 41, Rule 27 of the CPC, 1908 and the clarifications made by the Hon'ble Courts and Apex Court in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, it is held that, an application for additional evidence, if filed during the pendency of an appeal, the same is to be considered at the time of hearing of the appeal on merit, so as to find out whether, the Additional evidence sought to be adduced has any relevancy/bearing on the issues involve therein and it should be the duty of the appellate Court to postpone the consideration of the petition for additional evidence under Order 41, Rule 27 of the CPC till the hearing of the appeal on merits and to take up the same at the time hearing of the appeal on merits in order to find out the relevancy and admissibility of the additional evidence sought to be adduced.
WP(C) No.19732 of 2025 Page 7 of 9
So, by applying the above clarified propositions of law to the impugned order dated 01.08.2013 (Annexure-3) passed by the learned Addl. District Judge-cum-Special Judge, Vigilance, Balasore in R.F.A No.34/2006, it is held that, the impugned order is not erroneous in any manner, because, the learned Addl. District Judge-cum-Special Judge, Vigilance, Balasore has passed the impugned order as per law giving observations in the said impugned order that, the petition dated 27.06.2013 filed by the appellants (petitioners in this writ petition) in R.F.A. No.34/2006 under Order 41, Rule 27 of the CPC read with Order 26 Rule 10A of the CPC would be considered at the time of the final hearing of the appeal giving liberty to the parties to agitate their respective stands in respect of the said petition under Order 41, Rule 27 of the CPC read with Order 26 Rule 10A of the CPC at the time of hearing of the appeal vide R.F.A. No.34 of 2006.
7. When it is held that, the impugned order dated 01.08.2013 passed in R.F.A. No.34/2006 by the learned Addl. District Judge-cum-Special Judge, Vigilance, Balasore is not erroneous, then, at this juncture, the question of interfering WP(C) No.19732 of 2025 Page 8 of 9 with the same through this writ petition filed by the petitioners (Appellants in R.F.A. No.34/2006) does not arise.
8. Therefore, there is no merit in the writ petition filed by the petitioners. The same must fail.
9. In result, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is dismissed.
10. As such, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is disposed of finally.
(ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA) JUDGE High Court of Orissa, Cuttack The 23 .12. 2025// Rati Ranjan Nayak Sr. Stenographer Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RATI RANJAN NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 27-Dec-2025 14:57:56 WP(C) No.19732 of 2025 Page 9 of 9